Platoon Defies Orders in Iraq
RH
called 'superiors' use them as kamakazees!
God bless em all.
--------------------------
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1015-11.htm
Platoon Defies Orders in Iraq
By Jeremy Hudson
The Clarion-Ledger, Jackson MS
Friday 15 October 2004
Miss. soldier calls home, cites safety concerns.
A 17-member Army Reserve platoon with troops from Jackson, Miss.,
and
around the Southeast deployed to Iraq is under arrest for refusing a
suicide
mission to deliver fuel, the troops relatives said Thursday.
The soldiers refused an order on Wednesday to go to Taji, Iraq
north of
Baghdad because their vehicles were considered deadlined or extremely
unsafe, said Patricia McCook of Jackson, wife of Sgt. Larry O. McCook.
Sgt. McCook, a deputy at the Hinds County, Miss., Detention
Center, and the
16 other members of the 343rd Quartermaster Company from Rock Hill,
S.C., were
read their rights and moved from the military barracks into tents,
Patricia
McCook said her husband told her during a panicked phone call about 5
a.m.
Thursday.
The platoon could be charged with the willful disobeying of
orders,
punishable by dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay and up to five
years
confinement, said military law expert Mark Stevens, an associate
professor of
justice studies at Wesleyan College in Rocky Mount, N.C.
On Friday, the Army confirmed that the units actions were under
scrutiny.
The commanding general of the 13th Corps Support Command has
appointed the
Deputy Commander to lead an investigation into allegations that
members of the
343rd Quartermaster Company refused to participate in their assigned
convoy
mission October 13, said Lt. Col Steven A. Boylan, a spokesman for
U.S. Army
and multinational forces in Iraq.
The investigating team is currently in Tallil taking statements
and
interviewing those involved. This is an isolated incident and it is
far too
early in the investigation to speculate as to what happened, why it
happened or
any action that might be taken, Boylan said.
It is important to note that the mission in question was carried
out using
other soldiers from the unit, Boylan said.
Boylan also confirmed that the unit is stationed in Tallil, a
logistical
support air base south of Nasiriyah.
Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said he plans to submit a
congressional
inquiry today on behalf of the Mississippi soldiers to launch an
investigation
into whether they are being treated improperly.
I would not want any member of the military to be put in a
dangerous
situation ill-equipped, said Thompson, who was contacted by families.
I have
had similar complaints from military families about vehicles that
werent
armor-plated, or bullet-proof vests that are outdated. It concerns me
because
we made over $150 billion in funds available to equip our forces in
Iraq.
President Bush takes the position that the troops are well-armed,
but if
this situation is true, it calls into question how honest he has been
with the
country, Thompson said.
The 343rd is a supply unit whose general mission is to deliver
fuel and
water. The unit includes three women and 14 men and those with ranking
up to
sergeant first class.
I got a call from an officer in another unit early (Thursday)
morning who
told me that my husband and his platoon had been arrested on a bogus
charge
because they refused to go on a suicide mission, said Jackie Butler of
Jackson, wife of Sgt. Michael Butler, a 24-year reservist. When my
husband
refuses to follow an order, it has to be something major.
The platoon being held has troops from Alabama, Kentucky, North
Carolina,
Mississippi and South Carolina, said Teresa Hill of Dothan, Ala.,
whose
daughter Amber McClenny is among those being detained.
McClenny, 21, pleaded for help in a message left on her mothers
answering
machine early Thursday morning.
They are holding us against our will, McClenny said. We are now
prisoners.
McClenny told her mother her unit tried to deliver fuel to another
base in
Iraq Wednesday, but was sent back because the fuel had been
contaminated with
water. The platoon returned to its base, where it was told to take the
fuel to
another base, McClenny told her mother.
The platoon is normally escorted by armed Humvees and helicopters,
but did
not have that support Wednesday, McClenny told her mother.
The convoy trucks the platoon was driving had experienced problems
in the
past and were not being properly maintained, Hill said her daughter
told her.
The situation mirrors other tales of troops being sent on missions
without
proper equipment.
Aviation regiments have complained of being forced to fly
dangerous
missions over Iraq with outdated night-vision goggles and old
missile-avoidance
systems. Stories of troops families purchasing body armor because the
military
didnt provide them with adequate equipment have been included in
recent
presidential debates.
Patricia McCook said her husband, a staff sergeant, understands
well the
severity of disobeying orders. But he did not feel comfortable taking
his
soldiers on another trip.
He told me that three of the vehicles they were to use were
deadlines ...
not safe to go in a hotbed like that, Patricia McCook said.
Hill said the trucks her daughters unit was driving could not top
40 mph.
They knew there was a 99 percent chance they were going to get
ambushed or
fired at, Hill said her daughter told her. They would have had no way
to
fight back.
Kathy Harris of Vicksburg, Miss., is the mother of Aaron Gordon,
20, who is
among those being detained. Her primary concern is that she has been
told the
soldiers have not been provided access to a judge advocate general.
Stevens said if the soldiers are being confined, law requires them
to have
a hearing before a magistrate within seven days.
Harris said conditions for the platoon have been difficult of
late. Her son
e-mailed her earlier this week to ask what the penalty would be if he
became
physical with a commanding officer, she said.
But Nadine Stratford of Rock Hill, S.C., said her godson Colin
Durham, 20,
has been happy with his time in Iraq. She has not heard from him since
the
platoon was detained.
When I talked to him about a month ago, he was fine, Stratford
said. He
said it was like being at home.
###
============
Good source for news:
http://www.commondreams.org/
======
Breaking the biggest story of all time:
http://www.share-international.org
---
Paul H. Lemmen
"RH" <halco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:524db79f.0410...@posting.google.com...
> Some soldiers are using their brains, rather than letting their so
> called 'superiors' use them as kamakazees!
> God bless em all.
>
environment is laudable. What an arsehole. You can disagree with the
motivations, you can question everything about the war. To refuse to
re-supply fellow soldiers is not only a violation of the oath sworn when
enlisting, it is counter to the training and very spirit of being a soldier.
These people, if this report is true, have broken a main tenent of the
soldiers creed, to support and protect your comrades in arms. If they are
not disciplined, no other unit will ever rely on them again. My personal
opinion is that if proven that they willfully refused to obey a lawful order
to supply sustinence to their fellow soldiers that everyone from the unit
commander down be sacked and the ringleaders by punished to the full extent
of the UCMJ...upon conviction the leaders of a mutiny during wartime may be
executed for their crime.
--
Paul H. Lemmen
Just because I act civilised does not mean I am.
Brian
"Paul H. Lemmen" <ple...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cJqdnTH90_U...@giganews.com...
> >
> Right...refusing to delivery fuel and water to comrades in a desert
> environment is laudable. What an arsehole. You can disagree with the
> motivations, you can question everything about the war. To refuse to
> re-supply fellow soldiers is not only a violation of the oath sworn when
> enlisting, it is counter to the training and very spirit of being a
soldier.
> These people, if this report is true, have broken a main tenent of the
> soldiers creed, to support and protect your comrades in arms. If they are
> not disciplined, no other unit will ever rely on them again. My personal
> opinion is that if proven that they willfully refused to obey a lawful
order
> to supply sustinence to their fellow soldiers that everyone from the unit
> commander down be sacked and the ringleaders by punished to the full
extent
> of the UCMJ...upon conviction the leaders of a mutiny during wartime may
be
> executed for their crime.
>
> --
> Paul H. Lemmen
> Just because I act civilised does not mean I am.
Well said Paul.
Brian
BigRedWingsFan
"Brian" <cameeb@ ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Kcbcd.668$0p....@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
Ditto.
Marty
>
> Brian
>
>
COL J. F. Burleson
to refuse to follow legal orders. That cannot be allowed to happen,
regardless of the circumstances. They should be punished to the extent
possible to serve as a reminder to others who may be having similar
thoughts. By their refusing to complete the mission, their fellow unit
members had to take their places; other folks who may have just returned
from a similar mission. The soldiers who refused the mission/orders are very
fortunate I am not their commander or a member of their court martial panel.
COL Colleen Maguire, the USDB Commandant at Leavenworth, is probably going
to pick up several more members of her "unit"... And, that is totally
justified and right.
Their only hope is that Kerry gets elected and pardons them.... sorry, I
just could not resist the last minute thought. :-) :-)
JFB
"RH" <halco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:524db79f.0410...@posting.google.com...
Baba Mung
> news:cJqdnTH90_U...@giganews.com...
> > >
> > Right...refusing to delivery fuel and water to comrades in a desert
> > environment is laudable. What an arsehole. You can disagree with the
> > motivations, you can question everything about the war. To refuse to
> > re-supply fellow soldiers is not only a violation of the oath sworn when
> > enlisting, it is counter to the training and very spirit of being a
> soldier.
> > These people, if this report is true, have broken a main tenent of the
> > soldiers creed, to support and protect your comrades in arms. If they
are
> > not disciplined, no other unit will ever rely on them again. My personal
> > opinion is that if proven that they willfully refused to obey a lawful
You raise an interesting point. Can an order be considered lawful under
American law even when it is given in the prosecution of a war which has
been declared illegal under international law?
Baba
la n.
> I agree with the majority here.... There is simply no excuse for any soldier
> to refuse to follow legal orders. That cannot be allowed to happen,
> regardless of the circumstances. They should be punished to the extent
> possible to serve as a reminder to others who may be having similar
> thoughts. By their refusing to complete the mission, their fellow unit
> members had to take their places; other folks who may have just returned
> from a similar mission. The soldiers who refused the mission/orders are very
> fortunate I am not their commander or a member of their court martial panel.
> COL Colleen Maguire, the USDB Commandant at Leavenworth, is probably going
> to pick up several more members of her "unit"... And, that is totally
> justified and right.
>
> Their only hope is that Kerry gets elected and pardons them.... sorry, I
> just could not resist the last minute thought. :-) :-)
>
>
So, kill 'em all, eh?
- nilita (canuckistanian civilian jes' tryin' to understand how
things are done ... ;)
COL J. F. Burleson
"la n." <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eNccd.10193$_u6.355@edtnps89...
***********
I don't understand your question....
JFB
la n.
Oh, okay, there are various threads of the like happening
in UMA. Some have called for the execution of these
soldiers under the Treason Act. I keep thinking there's
more to the story and that one shouldn't rush to judgement.
But, that's a (canadian) civilian view, and you can take
it with a grain of salt. I'm just here to learn.
- nilita
~Nins~
|| soldier to refuse to follow legal orders. That cannot be allowed to
|| happen, regardless of the circumstances. They should be punished to
|| the extent possible to serve as a reminder to others who may be
|| having similar thoughts. By their refusing to complete the mission,
|| their fellow unit members had to take their places; other folks who
|| may have just returned from a similar mission. The soldiers who
|| refused the mission/orders are very fortunate I am not their
|| commander or a member of their court martial panel. COL Colleen
|| Maguire, the USDB Commandant at Leavenworth, is probably going to
|| pick up several more members of her "unit"... And, that is totally
|| justified and right.
I think the military took the appropriate step in detaining them. I guess
they will have to determine if it was a "legal order", but I can't see how
it wasn't one since it is doubtful that all convoys have armed escorts over
there, and that they themselves were armed. Not to mention the fact that
prior to their arrival there they knew it was a volatile environment and
there might be instances where they would have to do dangerous things, and
they have had (hopefully) combat training prior to arriving there. I'm not
sure execution would be appropriate though. Court-martial? Definitely.
Incarceration? Perhaps, but not for an extended period. If there had been
fatalities as a result of their defiance (and there could have been), I
could see punishing them to the fullest extent, but if it to serve as a
"reminder", I think in this case there are options available other than the
maximum punishment that could be executed to render the desired result.
|| Their only hope is that Kerry gets elected and pardons them....
|| sorry, I just could not resist the last minute thought. :-) :-)
LOL! Or, that Kerry's wife pardons them (puppets and strings, tra-la-la,
da-dee-da). [Sorry, weak attempt at humor.]
Thagor
news:9cdcd.401927$Fg5.308112@attbi_s53:
Is this a "Legal war"? Were the mission move orders legal? Were these
soldiers being placed in harms way for no apparent reason?
Use some common sense here and agree that the punishment for this
incident will be easily justified.
With military strength levels dwindling to uncomfortable levels and the
worse part of this conflict yet to be fought, one might agree that if
this treason is not stopped solid right here, we WILL lose this battle.
If we leave this war up to the armchair quarterbacks, more contractors
will be needed to replentish the beheadings so that the soldiers can
quarrel over why they have to risk their lives.
Now, you weasels and slicky boys go back to your protected environment
and let the military handle this swiftly and justly.
BigRedWingsFan
Yep, right after the fair trial <dark humor intended>.
la n.
> On Sat 16 Oct 2004 01:29:41p, "COL J. F. Burleson"
> <burle...@chartertn.net> wrote in message
> news:10n2mbb...@corp.supernews.com:
> It's OK - "nilita" obviously didn't understand your post. Your post was
> quite clear and reasonable. It has been my observation that those who
> disagree with (insert any aspect of the current administration) lack the
> capability of any substantive reasoned argument. The only arrow in their
> quiver seems to be marked "DRAMATIC EFFECT"...
>
> JD Hood
I explained myself in a follow-up post. Now, if COL Burleson
is an officer and a gentleman, he will graciously accept my
clarification and otherwise take what I say with a grain of
salt. As I said, I'm only here to learn.
- nilita
Marian
morning... The wheels are coming off over there. This is just the tip of the
iceberg.
Marian
****************************************************************
AFTEReffects from The Great Debates ...(political 'toons)
http://www.PictureTrail.com/gid4463390
****************************************************************
COL J. F. Burleson
*************
I do appreciate and accept your clarification... It does not, however,
change my opinion about the situation.
Thanks...
JFB
la n.
Fair enough. As I said in another thread, one notes that
this is currently under investigation and that the Military
notes that this troop previously were known to be very
well disciplined, honourable, hard working, etc.
It makes me wonder ... what happened?
I guess mebbe because I'm a civilian I'm not ready yet
to see them so quickly judged and condemned to death.
I do understand how the Military generally feels about
cowardice, so your POV is valid.
- nilita
know buddee
> It has not been deemed an illegal war, nor is what is happening in Iraq a
> war, but an operation within a war.
If the occupation of Iraq isn't illegal, then our legal system is shot
to hell.
If you could only put yourself in the Iraqi's shoes for a while you
would see what I mean. Their country was invaded on false pretenses
(arguably lies), an estimated 20,000 of their innocent civilians have
been murdered (for lack of a better word) because their leader was a
bad guy. The leadership of the invading regime has bamboozled the the
masses into believing that the invasion and occupation is part of a
war on terrorism, when in fact it in itself is a massive terrorist
operation, and is creating more terrorists and giving people
everywhere reason to hate the USA.
I could go on, but I can't change minds. People have to change their
own minds. Either your mind is full of white house corporate bullshit
and you think the invasion/occupation and Bush are all ok, or you
have gathered enough facts to recognize that we have terrorized the
hell out of those poor people, and that the Bush regime should be
given life sentences in prison.
Many can see that the way that the US billionaire controlled news
media in the US has helped Bush in this war, the same way that the
German news media helped Hitler - by only showing the people one side
of the coin.
>
> || Use some common sense here and agree that the punishment for this
> || incident will be easily justified.
>
Those kids are innocent of any crime. The damn materials that they
were supposed to deliver could be dropped from the air. The regime
that lied to the world about WMD and used those lies to justify the
invasion, who insist that they did the right thing - are the guilty
ones. Give them life in prison cleaning toilets, pots, and pans. Make
them write 30 letters of apology to the survivors of their filthy
invasion and occupation every night for the rest of their lifes.
> Only if defiant acts multiply and continue among the ranks.
When the nation's leadership is as corrupt as ours, defiant acts can
be very heroic.
================
2 free online films for people who are serious about seeking/finding
the truth about whats going on in the world:
1. INDEPENDENT MEDIA IN A TIME OF WAR:
Part scathing critique, part call to action, "Independent Media In A
Time Of War" is a hard-hitting new documentary by the Hudson Mohawk
Independent Media Center (www.hm.indymedia.org). This film is composed
of a speech given by Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now! illustrated
by clips of mainstream media juxtaposed with rare footage from
independent reporters in Iraq. The documentary argues that dialogue is
vital to a healthy democracy. "Independent media has a crucial
responsibility to go to where the silence is," says Amy Goodman, "to
represent the diverse voices of people engaged in dissent." She makes
a compelling argument that the commercial news media have failed to
represent the "true face of war."
Running Time: 29:00 - Real Media_ Watch video online: Dial-Up |
Broadband
http://www.democracynow.org/static/IMIATOW.shtml
=================================
2. "Preventive Warriors."
The film examines a bold new foreign policy paper introduced by the
White House in September 2002 entitled: "The National Security
Strategy of the United States."
The document outlines a radical new doctrine in American foreign
policy: one of so-called "pre-emptive warfare." The Bush
administration used this policy as a justification for the invasion of
Iraq.
The film features many of the leading thinkers and intellectuals of
our time including Noam Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson, Tariq Ali and more
(including Phil Donahue).
view, listen or download this very powerful 1 hour film here:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/11/1623234
--------------------
From Vietnam to Iraq: American War Resisters Seek Refuge in Canada
In an unprecedented simulcast with Canadian Broadcasting's morning
show, "The Current," Democracy Now! broadcasts live from Toronto,
Canada. Decades after Vietnam War resisters fled to Canada to avoid
the draft, American soldiers who are resisting the war in Iraq are now
looking north of the border for a safe place to call home. We speak
with two Iraq war resisters, Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey who are
seeking refugee status in Canada as conscientious objectors. And we
speak with their lawyer, Jeffry House, who fled to Canada during the
Vietnam war to resist the draft. [includes rush transcript]
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/15/157205
...
....
----------------------------------------------------------
4 good sources for news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk
http://www.commondreams.org
http://www.democracynow.org
http://www.thirdcoastactivist.org/
=========================
"Man must change or die. There is no other course."
The World Teacher
http://www.share-international.org
Charles Penley
Charles Penley
"COL J. F. Burleson" <burle...@chartertn.net> wrote in message news:10n2ll0...@corp.supernews.com...
Jean B.
This has me thinking of Nuremberg....
--
Jean B.
la n.
> In article <EWfcd.11966$_u6.6123@edtnps89>
> "la n." <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>COL J. F. Burleson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The soldiers who refused
>>>>>>>>the mission/orders are very fortunate I am not their
>
> commander or a
>
>>>>>>>>member of their court martial panel.
>
>
> YOU are very fortunate that you are not their commander, since
> that commander will almost certainly be releived of his/her
> command.
>
> Leaders are supposed to be able to control their troops; a
> mutiny is likely to be a careeer-ending incident for the
> commander, too.
>
>>>>>>>>Their only hope is that Kerry gets elected and pardons
>
> them....
>
> Since Kerry, unlike Bush, is a combat veteran, he IS likely to
> understand the situation better.
>
>
>>I guess mebbe because I'm a civilian I'm not ready yet
>>to see them so quickly judged and condemned to death.
>
>
> I'm quite certain that the people calling for hangings at
> sunrise are all civilians.
> The military hasn't executed anyone for cowardice since WWII,
> and there were a LOT of mutinies in Viet Nam.
>
> Refusal to obey stupid orders was far more common than actual
> fraggings; most troops don't want to kill their officers, and
> most officers don't want to be killed.
Wait a minute here. First of all, I'm Canadian, and secondly -
like the vast majority of my compatriots I'm against the death
penalty. So you're preaching to the choir.
>
>
>>I do understand how the Military generally feels about
>>cowardice, so your POV is valid.
>
>
> I don't think you do, and it isn't.
You're right I don't really know how individuals feel.
OTOH, I can't tell anybody else how they're *supposed*
to feel any more than someone can tell *me* how I'm
*supposed* to *feel.* How the Colonel feels is valid
for him based on his culture, training, values, etc.
>
> There's a big difference between maintaining discpline and
> punishing individuals for actual cowardice.
>
> The latter is generally pointless.
I imagine you will have Military people telling you
otherwise.
>
> -=-
> This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.
Why do you post anonymously ... hmmm?
>
>
>
- nilita (who generally does not read anybody
who uses anonymous remailer)
>
~Nins~
|| "~Nins~" <nom...@noreply.com> wrote:
||||| Use some common sense here and agree that the punishment for this
||||| incident will be easily justified.
||
|| Those kids are innocent of any crime. The damn materials that they
|| were supposed to deliver could be dropped from the air. The regime
|| that lied to the world about WMD and used those lies to justify the
|| invasion, who insist that they did the right thing - are the guilty
|| ones. Give them life in prison cleaning toilets, pots, and pans. Make
|| them write 30 letters of apology to the survivors of their filthy
|| invasion and occupation every night for the rest of their lifes.
The comment you replied to here (provided above) is not from me. Clearly
you were overzealous in your editing of the post. ;)
lonestar
lonestar
Marian wrote:
> Thanks for this! The paper's website had crashed when I tried to access it this
> morning... The wheels are coming off over there. This is just the tip of the
> iceberg.
>
> Marian
Another "Patriotic" reply...... "You support the Troops..etc".
Colin Campbell
And we do not know the whole story yet. There are reports that one of
the issues was the fact that the vehicles were NMC (Not Mission
Capable).
We all need to wait for the full story and not jump to conclusions.
--
"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine
Colin Campbell
<burle...@chartertn.net> wrote:
>I agree with the majority here.... There is simply no excuse for any soldier
>to refuse to follow legal orders. That cannot be allowed to happen,
>regardless of the circumstances. They should be punished to the extent
>possible to serve as a reminder to others who may be having similar
>thoughts. By their refusing to complete the mission, their fellow unit
>members had to take their places; other folks who may have just returned
>from a similar mission. The soldiers who refused the mission/orders are very
>fortunate I am not their commander or a member of their court martial panel.
>COL Colleen Maguire, the USDB Commandant at Leavenworth, is probably going
>to pick up several more members of her "unit"... And, that is totally
>justified and right.
Why don't we wait for the full story before we jump to conclusions?
For example - under Army regulations - can a soldier be given a
'lawful order' to drive a deadlined vehicle on a mission?
Thagor
in news:jp74n0l3n7j2ir51f...@4ax.com:
It really makes no difference! This is an UCMJ issue and there are no
provisions for NMC vehicles justifying cowardice. Now, pending a
congressional review, there may be some officers that get their pinkies
spanked but the violating soldiers should in no way have been allowed to
return to duty. This is an absolute disgrace to the services and all who
ever had to serve. This shit is out of controll...
Pepperoni
>
> Why don't we wait for the full story before we jump to conclusions?
>
> For example - under Army regulations - can a soldier be given a
> 'lawful order' to drive a deadlined vehicle on a mission?
>
I seriously doubt that a deadlined vehicle could leave the motor pool.
That's what deadline means--- waiting on parts and service, or waiting to be
scavenged for parts. Deadlined vehicles don't even stand the IG inspection.
(but their paperwork does)
Pepperoni
edward ohare
<activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote:
>And we do not know the whole story yet. There are reports that one of
>the issues was the fact that the vehicles were NMC (Not Mission
>Capable).
I saw that. If so, then would they be appropriately disobeying
inappropriate orders?
>We all need to wait for the full story and not jump to conclusions.
Yes. (There's plenty of jumping to conclusions already in this
thread.)
Abrigon Gusiq
adequate support, to the point of it being literally suicide it
negligence by the command. And technically can be an unlawful order, and
there for any moral soldier will not obey..
A solider as proven by Nuremburg and other trials, has the obligation to
disobey an UNLAWFUL Order. Wish this had applied during WW1, when on any
given day of a battle, some 10,000 more soliders were wastefully
destroyed by their command.
I am amazed that the troops in WW1 did not revolt sooner, than the
sailors of the Imperial German Navy finally did..
Or, see the ratio of men to women in Australia/New Zealand from
1915-1940s.. And tell me how wasteful a command can be.
Now, to prove that the command was negligent in their command, and that
sending the platoon/unit into harmsway will not real chance of succeed
(Starbuck), and basically was a suicide order..
Basically, there is some funny stuff going on in Iraq, and has been from
day one..
The prison scandal, more officers should have been hung, but were not..
This sort of scandal, sets the stage for soldiers to realize that their
commanders/officers are setting them up for slaughter..
Something that any soldier, wishes never to happen, but sadly it does..
Or wonder why a few officers got fragged in Vietnam, cause of
irresponsible commanders, good old boys network and like behavior.
Irresponsible officers that cared little for their soliders, but for
medals and their own asses and promotions. Or, as has happens a few
times here in Alaska, like every 5 or so years, some officer/NCO kills
some people cause of negligence, not caring more for his/her comfort
than for the safety of his soldiers.
But, heh, likely reading in a lot of what is going on, but wish them the
best, but yes, could be they are just little kids, and cowards, and
should be dealt with accordingly.
Death is still on the books for cowardous? As well a for serious
infractions, such as willfully disobeying an "lawful" order. But, I
think we need to find out if the command given to the platoon/unit, was
lawful?
Mike
"Paul H. Lemmen" wrote:
>
> "RH" <halco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:524db79f.0410...@posting.google.com...
> > Some soldiers are using their brains, rather than letting their so
> > called 'superiors' use them as kamakazees!
> > God bless em all.
> >
> Right...refusing to delivery fuel and water to comrades in a desert
> environment is laudable. What an arsehole. You can disagree with the
> motivations, you can question everything about the war. To refuse to
> re-supply fellow soldiers is not only a violation of the oath sworn when
> enlisting, it is counter to the training and very spirit of being a soldier.
> These people, if this report is true, have broken a main tenent of the
> soldiers creed, to support and protect your comrades in arms. If they are
> not disciplined, no other unit will ever rely on them again. My personal
> opinion is that if proven that they willfully refused to obey a lawful order
> to supply sustinence to their fellow soldiers that everyone from the unit
> commander down be sacked and the ringleaders by punished to the full extent
> of the UCMJ...upon conviction the leaders of a mutiny during wartime may be
> executed for their crime.
>
> --
> Paul H. Lemmen
> Just because I act civilised does not mean I am.
Abrigon Gusiq
Colin Campbell wrote:
>
>
>
> And we do not know the whole story yet. There are reports that one of
> the issues was the fact that the vehicles were NMC (Not Mission
> Capable).
>
> We all need to wait for the full story and not jump to conclusions.
>
Good point Colin, waiting for more info, I strongly suspect there is
more to the situation than what the news and its 1 minute of
encapsulated/compressed news story
has given.
Mike
Abrigon Gusiq
If the Unit and its vehicles was so out of service/not fit for use. Then
it is up to the command to find replacements or to let highers know, to
effect replacement or maintenance support. As well as to give the unit
time to be come effect again.
Using a unit that has become really unfit for duty/service is almost
criminal in its scope.
It is like using an Battalion, that is normally 400 effectives, that is
down to 100 effectives, and command knows it..And then expect them to do
something that even the battalion could not normally do with out
support, but not give them any suport, and know it was suicide to send
them on the mission given.
Was the mission given to the platoon basically what amounted to Suicide?
Did the other unit, that replaced them suffer any casualties, did it
have more support than was planned for the mutining unit? Large
effective size of soldiers and materials?
Was it the unit command that said "We are not going" and refused the
order, or was it the unit members? What justifications did they give for
their actions. I expect they know the possible recourse of their
actions. Long term prison terms is the normal action these days, but
with current climate, the death penalty might still be used?
Actually disobeying a "lawful" order, is basically saying, if we do it,
we will die, and prefer imprisonment for likely the rest of our lives,
versus wasting them on some fools errand?
Mike
Alaska
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P-Of Why I Cry:
Thou I am not sure why, when I see that wall of black stone, cut
into the earth so green, I have to cry, thou I did not march in those
battles long ago, I did survive the time, and wondered how long will it
go on? So in my times today, I sit, and remember, my own days of service
and still I think and wonder why I cry when I see the wall. I had no
friend there, no buddies to remember and reflect on, but I do know I am
glad
that those I know, returned from that land far away, either service
there or
"visiting", or not having to go. So I sit here and cry, and wonder why,
it affect me so, so in the end, when I meet my end, will anyone remember
me so, to lay a wreate, a flower, a medal or letter. I do hope so, so in
the end, what is a man but memories of things we did, of friends who
remember us or us of them. So in the end, friendship is saying good bye
to friends departed and remembering them and doing them justice for the
time we
spent with them. So I say this, Good bye, but not forgotten.
Mike Adams, 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baldur wrote:
>
> In article <EWfcd.11966$_u6.6123@edtnps89>
> "la n." <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>COL J. F. Burleson wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>The soldiers who refused
> > >>>>>>the mission/orders are very fortunate I am not their
> commander or a
> > >>>>>>member of their court martial panel.
>
> YOU are very fortunate that you are not their commander, since
> that commander will almost certainly be releived of his/her
> command.
>
> Leaders are supposed to be able to control their troops; a
> mutiny is likely to be a careeer-ending incident for the
> commander, too.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Their only hope is that Kerry gets elected and pardons
> them....
>
> Since Kerry, unlike Bush, is a combat veteran, he IS likely to
> understand the situation better.
>
> > I guess mebbe because I'm a civilian I'm not ready yet
> > to see them so quickly judged and condemned to death.
>
> I'm quite certain that the people calling for hangings at
> sunrise are all civilians.
> The military hasn't executed anyone for cowardice since WWII,
> and there were a LOT of mutinies in Viet Nam.
>
> Refusal to obey stupid orders was far more common than actual
> fraggings; most troops don't want to kill their officers, and
> most officers don't want to be killed.
>
> > I do understand how the Military generally feels about
> > cowardice, so your POV is valid.
>
> I don't think you do, and it isn't.
>
> There's a big difference between maintaining discpline and
> punishing individuals for actual cowardice.
>
> The latter is generally pointless.
>
Abrigon Gusiq
kill them via firing squad, no matter what part they played in the
events.
I do fin d it interesting, that on TMC they had a movie with Kirk
Douglas, about a unit that was faced with picking out one member from
their number, per company, to face court martial and firing squad.
All cause some General to save face, cause he gave a totally crazy order
to take the "Ant Hill". Sending a depleted Regiment to take an objective
that even a Brigade at full strength, might have found hard to do, with
the expected casualties at some 85% of total numbers..
I know it is WW1, and French, but it can be from many other wars.
Mike
"COL J. F. Burleson" wrote:
>
> "la n." <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:eNccd.10193$_u6.355@edtnps89...
> > COL J. F. Burleson wrote:
> >
> > > I agree with the majority here.... There is simply no excuse for any
> soldier
> > > to refuse to follow legal orders. That cannot be allowed to happen,
> > > regardless of the circumstances. They should be punished to the extent
> > > possible to serve as a reminder to others who may be having similar
> > > thoughts. By their refusing to complete the mission, their fellow unit
> > > members had to take their places; other folks who may have just returned
> > > from a similar mission. The soldiers who refused the mission/orders are
> very
> > > fortunate I am not their commander or a member of their court martial
> panel.
> > > COL Colleen Maguire, the USDB Commandant at Leavenworth, is probably
> going
> > > to pick up several more members of her "unit"... And, that is totally
> > > justified and right.
> > >
> > > Their only hope is that Kerry gets elected and pardons them.... sorry, I
> > > just could not resist the last minute thought. :-) :-)
> > >
> > >
> >
Abrigon Gusiq
Steps taken to detain them. To Find if the order was due to the
circumstances at the time it was given, a "legal" order. And if so, they
should be procecuted under the law, but some mercy should be expressed,
as a possible option.
Now to see if the order was legal/lawful, or was criminal in its intent.
Mike
Abrigon Gusiq
driven/used, at the commanders choice, and he/she takes responsibility.
True, some vehicles that are deadlined for things like brakes can not be
allowed to be driven.. Sort of ludicrious for someone to sign off on it
to be driven?
But ones such as not having lights, turn signals and like, can be
driven, as long as the commander signs off on them..
Mike
Alaska
Abrigon Gusiq
US Military Investigates Possible Breakdown of Command Among
Date:
Sun, 17 Oct 2004 01:49:34 GMT
From:
Otis Willie <americanw...@pacbell.net>
Organization:
The American War Library
Newsgroups:
us.military.army
US Military Investigates Possible Breakdown of Command Among
{EXCERPT} Voice of America, DC - 18 hours ago The US military in Iraq
is investigating whether American soldiers disobeyed orders to conduct
a re-supply mission north of Baghdad because they thought they......
U.S. and friendly nation laws prohibit fully
reproducing copyrighted material. In abidance
with our laws this report cannot be provided in
its entirety. However, you can read it in full
today at the supplied URL. The subject/content of
this report is not necessarily the viewpoint of
the distributing Library. This report is provided
for your information and discussion.
---------------------------
Otis Willie
Associate Librarian
The American War Library
http://www.americanwarlibrary.com
(310) 532-0634
RH wrote:
>
> Some soldiers are using their brains, rather than letting their so
> called 'superiors' use them as kamakazees!
> God bless em all.
>
> among those being detained. Her primary concern is that she has been
> told the
Montesquiou
"Abrigon Gusiq" <abr...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
41725ABE...@yahoo.com...
Very well said Mike.
I don't know if some here visited the infamous "Chemin des Dames" near
Soisson.
During the WWI, on april 16 1917, the French General Nivelle launched a
great offensive on this Chemin des Dames.
A suicidal and useless offensive who cost to the French 30 000 dead, in 10
days, for just 500 meters ! Yes 30 000 and around twice in wounded for 500
meters !
Of course Nivelle were replaced by General Petain on april 29.
Before his replacement Nivelle had put on Military trial and executed many
soldiers accused of mutiny.
Later Georges Clemenceau will say "Military justice is to justice what
military music is to music."
Jay T.Beatty
"Pepperoni" <hux...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2teorrF...@uni-berlin.de...
hatch of a HMMWV go out it's a dead line, but the truck can still roll,
lights not working is a dead line but the rest of the vehicle still works.
A commander can still allow the vehicle to be used, but I think that Top
Campbell is right, we should wait for more into before condemning them (or
justifying their actions as well).
RH
a heavily sanctioned and crippled little country with a rag tag army
and bases that invasion on false information. We have killed around
20,000 of their women and children, and wrecked what was left of their
nation and we won't apologize or leave.
Anyone who doesn't have a problem with that picture is very dumb and
blind.
Those kids are innocent of any crime. The damn materials that they
were supposed to deliver could be dropped from the air. The regime
that lied to the world about WMD and used those lies to justify the
invasion, who insist that they did the right thing - are the guilty
ones. Give them life in prison cleaning toilets, pots, and pans. Make
them write 30 letters of apology to the survivors of their filthy
invasion and occupation every night for the rest of their lifes.
> Only if defiant acts multiply and continue among the ranks.
When the nation's leadership is as corrupt as ours, defiant acts can
be very heroic.
RH
Colin Campbell
>> > And we do not know the whole story yet. There are reports that
one of
> > the issues was the fact that the vehicles were NMC (Not Mission
> > Capable).
> >
> > We all need to wait for the full story and not jump to conclusions.
> >
>
> It really makes no difference! This is an UCMJ issue and there are no
> provisions for NMC vehicles justifying cowardice. Now, pending a
> congressional review, there may be some officers that get their pinkies
> spanked but the violating soldiers should in no way have been allowed to
> return to duty. This is an absolute disgrace to the services and all who
> ever had to serve. This shit is out of controll...
It actually does make a difference. Any order that violatres Arfmy
Regulation is not a lawful order.
BTW - what makes you so sure that the issue was "cowardance?"
I suggest that you shut up and wait for the investigation to be
completed. Until we know all the facts - we cannot make any
judgements.
Or do you always condemm people based on nothing more than rumor and
newspaper articles whose source is hearsay?
John Fake Kerry
Colin Campbell wrote:
Didn't officers send another group using the same equipment on the same mission and they came back?
Apparently those that refused to complete the mission made a big mistake. Now let them pay the price
and complete their sentences in a cage.
--
I'm NOT John Kerry and he disapproves of this message.
Communist Vietnamese honor John Kerry, the war protester,
as a hero in their victory over the United States.
http://communistsforkerry.com/pictures/cdw0423_1.jpg
http://communistsforkerry.com/pictures/cdw0424_1.jpg
http://communistsforkerry.com/pictures/cdw0616_1.jpg
http://611.mystarband.net/images/VVAW06.jpg
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/graphics/pic052k.jpg
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/graphics/pic049k.jpg
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/graphics/pic016k.jpg
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/graphics/B01.jpg
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/graphics/kerry_doi.jpg
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/graphics/A03.jpg
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/graphics/A06.jpg
http://www.1stcavmedic.com/Jane_Fonda/Jane_admiration2-small.jpg
http://www.1stcavmedic.com/Jane_Fonda/Jane_gun.jpg
http://www.1stcavmedic.com/Jane_Fonda/Jangun4.jpg
http://www.1stcavmedic.com/Jane_Fonda/Jane-color.jpg
http://images.washtimes.com/photos/web/20040210-052011-3111.jpg
http://www.newsmax.com/images/headlines/Fonda_Kerry_arrow.jpg
http://www.rhyner.com/realclips/Hanoi_Kerry_and_Crew.WMV
(5 Meg download of Video of the Kerry Medal Toss)
Jane Fonda tells the student audience at the Michigan State
University in 1969; "I would think that if you understood what
communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees,
that we would someday become communist."
MORE:
Communist Ortega meets Kerry
http://www.netforcuba.org/kerDan.gif
John and Jane forever...
la n.
It's no wonder I'm sweet on this guy ... ;)
- nilita
COL J. F. Burleson
"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:7784n0h31gjug1dsk...@4ax.com...
> <burle...@chartertn.net> wrote:
>
> >I agree with the majority here.... There is simply no excuse for any
soldier
> >to refuse to follow legal orders. That cannot be allowed to happen,
> >regardless of the circumstances. They should be punished to the extent
> >possible to serve as a reminder to others who may be having similar
> >thoughts. By their refusing to complete the mission, their fellow unit
> >members had to take their places; other folks who may have just returned
> >from a similar mission. The soldiers who refused the mission/orders are
very
> >fortunate I am not their commander or a member of their court martial
panel.
> >COL Colleen Maguire, the USDB Commandant at Leavenworth, is probably
going
> >to pick up several more members of her "unit"... And, that is totally
> >justified and right.
>
> Why don't we wait for the full story before we jump to conclusions?
My comments are based on what has been reported... Obviously, if the facts
are different, my opinion may be, as well. However, if the basic facts are
true, these soldiers volated several articles of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice and deserve to be punished. Whatever else is brought up in
their defence may serve to cause those in judgement to mitigate the
punishment, but it will not erase the basic fact that they failed to obey a
lawful order (if found to be such).
*****************
> For example - under Army regulations - can a soldier be given a
> 'lawful order' to drive a deadlined vehicle on a mission?
Absolutely.... There are many reasons a vehicle can be deem "deadlined" and
still driven, under exigent circumstances. Mission may take priority over a
"safety deadline", for example. If there is a safety strap missing off the
back of a truck, it is "safety deadlined", for example.If it has not been
serviced in accordance with the service schedule, it is "maintenance
deadlined". If a seat is missing; if a tool is missing; if a piece of
canvas is missing; if the tires have not been rotated on schedule; etc.,
etc., etc.... it is deadlined. Commanders can authorize deadlined vehicles
to be operated. I have done that on several occasions due to mission
requirements...
A soldier who willfully disobeys a lawful order must pay the piper....
JFB
COL J. F. Burleson
"Abrigon Gusiq" <abr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:417278B8...@yahoo.com...
> Depends on why the vehicle was deadlined. Some vehicles can be
> driven/used, at the commanders choice, and he/she takes responsibility.
>
> True, some vehicles that are deadlined for things like brakes can not be
> allowed to be driven.. Sort of ludicrious for someone to sign off on it
> to be driven?
>
> But ones such as not having lights, turn signals and like, can be
> driven, as long as the commander signs off on them..
>
> Mike
> Alaska
Absolutely..... I've authorized it on several occasions due to mission
requirements.
JFB
RTO Trainer
I'm heraing reports that hte fuel that theye were sup[posed tobe
deliverring was contaminated. If that's true, then refusing to
deliver it could have prevented helicopter crashes.
---
COFFEE.EXE missing
Insert CUP and press ENTER to retry.
Jim Chandler
Justice (UCMJ) and is lawful regardless of the "international law" you
seem to think has called this war "illegal" (it hasn't). Therefore, the
people who refused to carry out such an order are subject to the
provisions of the UCMJ and are subject to punishment thereunder.
JimC
Baba Mung wrote:
> "Brian" <cameeb@ ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:Kcbcd.668$0p....@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>
>>"Paul H. Lemmen" <ple...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:cJqdnTH90_U...@giganews.com...
>>
>>>Right...refusing to delivery fuel and water to comrades in a desert
>>>environment is laudable. What an arsehole. You can disagree with the
>>>motivations, you can question everything about the war. To refuse to
>>>re-supply fellow soldiers is not only a violation of the oath sworn when
>>>enlisting, it is counter to the training and very spirit of being a
>>
>>soldier.
>>
>>>These people, if this report is true, have broken a main tenent of the
>>>soldiers creed, to support and protect your comrades in arms. If they
>
> are
>
>>>not disciplined, no other unit will ever rely on them again. My personal
>>>opinion is that if proven that they willfully refused to obey a lawful
>>
>>order......
>
>
> You raise an interesting point. Can an order be considered lawful under
> American law even when it is given in the prosecution of a war which has
> been declared illegal under international law?
>
> Baba
>
>
Jim Chandler
yada, blah blah blah. You've been saying that for months. Get real.
JimC
Marian wrote:
> Thanks for this! The paper's website had crashed when I tried to access it this
> morning... The wheels are coming off over there. This is just the tip of the
> iceberg.
>
> Marian
>
>
>>Some soldiers are using their brains, rather than letting their so
>>called 'superiors' use them as kamakazees!
>>God bless em all.
>>
> ****************************************************************
> AFTEReffects from The Great Debates ...(political 'toons)
> http://www.PictureTrail.com/gid4463390
> ****************************************************************
>
>
>
**Dalin**
were not used at the front. I do think the person who ordered them
to go was wrong, but the soldiers were probably wrong to disobey an
order too. But it's not an order I would want to obey if I knew I
wasn't properly equipped.
I wish the military would stop looking at rules and use a little
common sense. You don't send a soldier out to fight a war without a
gun. Why would you order them to go to the fighting without proper
protection? If they get in trouble for this, I think their commander
should too.
Dalin
Jim Chandler
own minds. Either your mind is full of white house corporate bullshit
and you think the invasion/occupation and Bush are all ok, or you
have gathered enough facts to recognize that we have terrorized the
hell out of those poor people, and that the Bush regime should be
Now who's head is full of bullshit? What a moron.
JimC
know buddee wrote:
> "~Nins~" <nom...@noreply.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It has not been deemed an illegal war, nor is what is happening in Iraq a
>>war, but an operation within a war.
>
>
>
> If the occupation of Iraq isn't illegal, then our legal system is shot
> to hell.
>
> If you could only put yourself in the Iraqi's shoes for a while you
> would see what I mean. Their country was invaded on false pretenses
> (arguably lies), an estimated 20,000 of their innocent civilians have
> been murdered (for lack of a better word) because their leader was a
> bad guy. The leadership of the invading regime has bamboozled the the
> masses into believing that the invasion and occupation is part of a
> war on terrorism, when in fact it in itself is a massive terrorist
> operation, and is creating more terrorists and giving people
> everywhere reason to hate the USA.
>
> I could go on, but I can't change minds. People have to change their
> own minds. Either your mind is full of white house corporate bullshit
> and you think the invasion/occupation and Bush are all ok, or you
> have gathered enough facts to recognize that we have terrorized the
> hell out of those poor people, and that the Bush regime should be
> given life sentences in prison.
>
> Many can see that the way that the US billionaire controlled news
> media in the US has helped Bush in this war, the same way that the
> German news media helped Hitler - by only showing the people one side
> of the coin.
>
>
>>|| Use some common sense here and agree that the punishment for this
>>|| incident will be easily justified.
>>
>
>
>
> Those kids are innocent of any crime. The damn materials that they
> were supposed to deliver could be dropped from the air. The regime
> that lied to the world about WMD and used those lies to justify the
> invasion, who insist that they did the right thing - are the guilty
> ones. Give them life in prison cleaning toilets, pots, and pans. Make
> them write 30 letters of apology to the survivors of their filthy
> invasion and occupation every night for the rest of their lifes.
>
>
>>Only if defiant acts multiply and continue among the ranks.
>
>
>
> When the nation's leadership is as corrupt as ours, defiant acts can
> be very heroic.
>
>
Jim Chandler
understand the situation better.
Driving a boat up and down a river (actually riding a boat since someone
else was doing the actual driving) hardly makes Kerry a "combat veteran."
JimC
Baldur wrote:
> In article <EWfcd.11966$_u6.6123@edtnps89>
> "la n." <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>COL J. F. Burleson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The soldiers who refused
>>>>>>>>the mission/orders are very fortunate I am not their
>
> commander or a
>
>>>>>>>>member of their court martial panel.
>
>
> YOU are very fortunate that you are not their commander, since
> that commander will almost certainly be releived of his/her
> command.
>
> Leaders are supposed to be able to control their troops; a
> mutiny is likely to be a careeer-ending incident for the
> commander, too.
>
>>>>>>>>Their only hope is that Kerry gets elected and pardons
>
> them....
>
Thagor
news:Xns9585AF9F0C0...@63.218.45.22:
> On Sun 17 Oct 2004 01:06:53p, colin.c...@us.army.mil (Colin
> Campbell) wrote in message
> news:1193103c.04101...@posting.google.com:
>
>> Thagor <tha...@email.coma> wrote in message
>> news:<Xns95851BEBFEA...@207.115.63.158>...
>>
>> {snippage}
>>>
>>> It really makes no difference! This is an UCMJ issue and there are
>>> no provisions for NMC vehicles justifying cowardice. Now, pending a
>>> congressional review, there may be some officers that get their
>>> pinkies spanked but the violating soldiers should in no way have
>>> been allowed to return to duty. This is an absolute disgrace to the
>>> services and all who ever had to serve. This shit is out of
>>> controll...
> Of *course* he does, Sir. If the poster were to remain reasonable and
> prudent, how in the world could the issue be milked for wild-arsed
> rhetoric intended solely for full dramatic effect? It appears obvious
> to me the poster has little use for substantive fact - the mere
> accusation is all the "proof" he requires. Considering that when a
> patently untenable position is adopted that relies primarily on
> emotionally charged spin and exaggeration, those posters are only
> taken seriously when they preach to their own choir.
>
> There is no cover-up, conspiracy, scape-goating, wide-spread mutiny,
> wide- spread plummeting moral, etc. indicated by any reports that have
> been aired so far. The only thing going on is an investigation into an
> isolated incident that the Military apparently brought to light in the
> first place. Those running around screeching, "the sky is falling!"
> will just have to tolerate the stifled giggling at their expense.
>
> Just my opinion...
> JD Hood
You are very correct, there's no cover-up, conspiracy or none of the rest
of the trash you seemed to invent then object to your own statements. One
key phrase you used did hit the nail on the head though. "emotionally
charged spin and exaggeration". This my friend is exactly why we are in
this forbidden land in the first place. You can call it what you want and
defend the intentions till the cows come home but you originally coined
the precise words.
The soldiers defiance to perform their duties is a most serious offence
to all who must face the enemy and should not be allowed to return to
duty under any circumstances. What happens now when they refuse their
next mission also? How many times can this be allowed before the
situation is brought under control? The investigation may very well take
months to complete and yet these soldiers must be trusted by comrads to
complete their mission, based on what? Lets all be republican about this
and stick our heads in the sand. Let's pretend it doesn't exist and maybe
it will go away. It went away in Viet Nam, did't it?
Thagor
> Since Kerry, unlike Bush, is a combat veteran, he IS likely to
> understand the situation better.
>
> Driving a boat up and down a river (actually riding a boat since someone
> else was doing the actual driving) hardly makes Kerry a "combat veteran."
>
> JimC
>
Whoa! It is now obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Just boarding the boat knowing that VC would have the guns trained on him
tells me his fortitude is far greater than the flyboy who never seemed to
be in harms way at all.
You are so right, there is no comparason at all. Not even on the same
religous level.
la n.
With all due respect, Colonel, I agree with Colin that the
current Military brass are doing their job correctly by
investigating and withholding comment.
You are among those who are hot headedly playing judge,
jury, and hangmen based on rumours and short t.v. clips.
I don't care if you are an Army Colonel or King of the
World, there is due process. Of course, anyone has the
right to have an opinion, but you - sir - would prolly
be discharged from being part of the investigative team
because of your obvious bent to convict from the safety
of your armchair and from what little you've seen on
the t.v.
Just my IMHO.
- nilita, thinking that the U.S. Army is lucky to have
cool headed NCO's like Colin who are actually over there
doing the job ...
Jim Chandler
unfortunately, very few of the vehicles the military uses, relatively
speaking, are armored. Supply vehicles (fuel trucks, 2 1/2 ton trucks,
etc) are not considered "fighting vehicles" and therefore are not
furnished with armor plateing. If there were not rules, the military
could not exist. There has to be a set way to do things and everyone
has to be able to say, "This is the way it has to be done because the
rules say so." Some leeway is allowed but to allow everyone to make up
their own way of doing things would be catastrophic.
JimC
**Dalin**
seemed strange to me that a whole platoon would refuse an order unless
they felt the order was wrong. I remember complaints when the war
started of soldiers having to have their families buy and send body
armor because the military didn't provide it. And I felt that
commanders, being human, could give bad orders too. But I don't
really know about this stuff, I guess I was just looking at things
from a common sense point of view, wondering why the supplies couldn't
be dropped from the air.
Dalin
Jim Chandler
making the drop, etc. On top of that airdropping liquids required=s
special bladders and other equipment and dropping fuel is rarely done
for obvious reasons (parachute failure, splat, boom). If the recipients
were in a town or village then air drop is out. Besides that the
dropped supplies are vulnerable to ground fire before landing and the
people that have to go pick it up are vulnerable when they go out plus
they have to have special handling equipment to move the containers
(they're heavy). If you're talking about the military, common sense has
no place in the same sentense or paragraph. I learned that over 21+ years.
JimC
COL J. F. Burleson
****************
Do you not read or understand things you comment on??
I specifically stated that my opinion was based on what has been reported,
which, I admit, may not be accurate.
If the reports are, in fact, accurate, the soldiers were wrong and deserve
to be punished. I fully understand that the reports may be wrong.... Trust
me, I have no unrealistic expectations that the news media is always
right... quite the contrary, in fact.
I certainly support the notion that the soldiers' chain of command
investigate the situation fully and, based on their findings, take whatever
action they deem appropriate. I also think it totally reasonable,
understandable and correct that they withhold information concerning the
incident and their investigation until the investigation is complete.
And, by the way, I have never been accused of having an "obvious bent to
convict", except by a few defense counsels in court-martials I was assigned
to sit on, when asked if I could honestly state that the accused was "just
as likely innocent as he/she was guilty". Now, 99% of the folks asked that
question say "yes"... which is "BS". My rationale for saying "no" is that,
before a soldier gets before a court-martial board, he/she has been through
pretty exhaustive investigations. I'm not saying that he/she is guilty; I'm
just saying that it certainly is not 50/50. We don't just take soldiers off
the street and put them in front of a court-martial board. Those who appear
before a court-martial board my be innocent, but, because of what transpired
before they got there, like it or not, they are more likely guilty than
innocent. Yes, I got challenged off the court-martials by the defense....
although, in my estimation, I was the only one being honest. Those who said
the chances were 50/50 were either naive or lying. The very "due process"
you mention makes it highly unlikely -- no, guarantees -- that it is not
50/50.
Again, from my reading of the "facts" reported, my opinion is that the
soldiers violated the UCMJ, not to mention their duty to their nation, unit
and fellow soldiers, and should be punished. If the facts reported are
wrong, I may have a different opinion, depending on what changed.
I have never, to my knowledge, had a soldier say that I was biased, unfair,
uncaring, etc... even ones I have had to punish. I'm proud of that.
JFB
la n.
Re. your last paragraph, I'm glad to hear that. OTOH, this
is a topic that would have prolly been less offensive and
more interesting if it were discussed in general terms, rather
than jumping on this one case, adding to the gossip, innuendo,
rumour mill, ill will, etc., especially in this current
political climate.
Having said that, my response to you may have been
knee-jerk for which I apologize. It's just that Colin
is a good friend of mine, a very cool headed and
fair man, who has taught me to temper my own sometimes
extreme passions. As such, he is my role model and -
dare I say it - my hero. And he seems to be reiterating
what the Brass in Iraq are saying.
- nilita
COL J. F. Burleson
Apology accepted... I know you meant no offense. Also, I am not
thin-skinned.
What makes this newsgroup great is that people can share their opinions and
agree/disagree without getting mad/upset with each other.
Colin sounds like a good friend, who offers good advice.
I, like everyone else, will have to wait for the "facts" in this situation
and form my own opinion. In the meantime, my opinion will be formed based
on what I hear, completely accurate or not. As the "full truth and nothing
but the truth" is revealed (if ever), my opinion may change. What will
never change, however, is my deep conviction that soldiers... be they
privates or generals... must obey lawful orders of those authorized to give
them. The situation or facts will not change that. Of course the key words
in that are "lawful orders".... and just because an order is unpopular or
dangerous, it does not make it any less lawful. We simply cannot allow
soldiers to pick and choose which orders they will obey and which they
won't.
Thanks for participating in this discussion... Your opinions are just as
welcome as mine or anybody else's. It make for a lively discussion.
Like I said, however,.... our Monday morning quarterbacking really has no
impact.
JFB
LawsonE
"COL J. F. Burleson" <burle...@chartertn.net> wrote in message
news:10n65lj...@corp.supernews.com...
But you MUST deal with the situation as though it were 50/50 unless
"innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply in courts martial?
Dana
news:10n65lj...@corp.supernews.com...
Seems you both have jumped to wrong conclusions.
Or there is a problem of seeing the trees because of the forrest.
>
> If the reports are, in fact, accurate, the soldiers were wrong and deserve
> to be punished. I fully understand that the reports may be wrong.... Trust
> me, I have no unrealistic expectations that the news media is always
> right... quite the contrary, in fact.
OK lets look at this. The supply troops were talking about the vehicles were
not in an operable condition and needed maintenance, and that there was no
security for the convoy.
I am not to sure about in the Army, but in the Marines, the support services
provide their own security, so this lack of security has me questioning what
has been reported.
So lets look at the condition of the vehicles. We do not know what shape
they were in, and we are hearing different stories from the vehicles lacking
Armor, to the vehicles not being able to run.
I also read somewhere where the supply troops knew the gas was contanimated,
hence why deliver contaminated gas.
So really until all facts are known, us guys who are not there can only
speculate on the actions of these troops.
And it does seem that the Army has a handle on this and is investigating the
issue.
>
> I certainly support the notion that the soldiers' chain of command
> investigate the situation fully and, based on their findings, take
whatever
> action they deem appropriate. I also think it totally reasonable,
> understandable and correct that they withhold information concerning the
> incident and their investigation until the investigation is complete.
That would be best. While I would hate to think that a whole platoon of
supply troops would refuse orders without good cause, at this point until
more info comes out I am willing to give them the benefit of doubt. It may
be that the vehicles were not in a condition to make such a convoy, and that
there existed a situation where one or more vehicles could have broken down
in route to the other base. The Army support troops already made one mistake
eariler in the fighting when that unit that the Jessica girl was in made a
wrong turn, no reason to make another mistake and make a risky convoy even
more dangerous. As we all know with Convoy's the key is to keep moving,
especially when you have only light security covering the route of the
convoy, so having vehicles that would probably break down in route would not
be a very smart move.
And again all speculation until the Army completes the investigation.
>
> And, by the way, I have never been accused of having an "obvious bent to
> convict", except by a few defense counsels in court-martials I was
assigned
> to sit on,
OUCH.
>when asked if I could honestly state that the accused was "just
> as likely innocent as he/she was guilty". Now, 99% of the folks asked that
> question say "yes"... which is "BS". My rationale for saying "no" is that,
> before a soldier gets before a court-martial board, he/she has been
through
> pretty exhaustive investigations.
We all know that there are cases that do not get such investigations.
And we have seen acts that should have been a court martial offense, but the
person only received office hours.
Sometimes the Court Martial is occuring only because the person rejected the
office hours, and decided to try his case before the Court Martial, hence
the person thought there was more to the issue than what would have been
heard in a simple office hours type of hearing.
I'm not saying that he/she is guilty; I'm
> just saying that it certainly is not 50/50. We don't just take soldiers
off
> the street and put them in front of a court-martial board. Those who
appear
> before a court-martial board my be innocent, but, because of what
transpired
> before they got there, like it or not, they are more likely guilty than
> innocent.
I would not be able to make such a generic conclusion, I would have to look
at each case.
> Yes, I got challenged off the court-martials by the defense....
Which may have been a good thing for the accused.
> although, in my estimation, I was the only one being honest.
OK, I have been out of the service for awhile, and have been called up for
Jury Duty. What a pain in the butt, especially if you have lots of work to
do. So here you go down to the court house and you get selected for a case,
heck if you are real busy you have already convicted the guy because the
police have arrested him, and the DA charged him, so he must be guilty. One
quick way off of Jury Duty is to do just that, during the Jury screening,
just tell the lawyers you think the guy is already guilty, or innocent
before the case even begins. You are then off of Jury duty. But is justice
really being done. You need to look at each case individually, or else you
let preconceived notions affect your decision.
>Those who said
> the chances were 50/50 were either naive or lying. The very "due process"
> you mention makes it highly unlikely -- no, guarantees -- that it is not
> 50/50.
You really do not believe that.
Yes in the military the rules and regulations are black and white, but if
the case has reached the point of going to a court martial, where Article 15
(office hours) were either rejected or found to be unsuitable for the
charges presented, you would have to look at each case individually. Simple
UA, and disobeying an order can be handled with office hours, but if that
case makes it to the court martial level, there has to be more than what we
expect, so it is best to go in with an open mind and hear all the evidence
before saying the guy is guilty.
A good example is that prison over there where the reservists treated the
prisoners in a way they should have not been treated.
You have that female soldier in the picture going up on a court martial. Do
I think she was in the wrong, even now with the evidence offered so far, I
could not in honesty say she was guilty. The type of abuse, where a female
was humiliating a moslem male strikes me as being a directed action. Being
that Moselms treat their ladies like garbage, having a female humiliate a
moslem male has to work on the psych of that guy, and of his other prisoners
around him that saw what happened. I would say she was wrong for following
the order she was probably giving, but she was probably ordered to do that
kind of action as a method of getting information out of the prisoners. It
is just a shame that this prison issue leaked out like it did, but we all
know the truth. So the military will go through the court martials, demote
and punish some enlisted and maybe some officers, and then the issue will be
swept under the rug. Do I think it was abuse, not counting that dead
prisoner, but the other abuse where the prisoners were all piled up on each
other, and the female humiliating the moslem male, being how those moslems
act, no I do not see that as abuse, compared to what the moslems do to their
own ladies and prisoners, what went on in that prison was childs play.
>
> Again, from my reading of the "facts" reported, my opinion is that the
> soldiers violated the UCMJ, not to mention their duty to their nation,
unit
> and fellow soldiers, and should be punished. If the facts reported are
> wrong, I may have a different opinion, depending on what changed.
From the facts reported it could still be that the vehicles would not have
made the trip because of their condition, and that there was not enough
troops to go along to provide the security normally associated with a
convoy, hence the troops are correct it would have been a suicide mission,
resulting in deaths that could have been avoided by waiting until the
vehicles were made operational, and enough fire support was found for the
convoy. Hence it could have been an order that should have never been given
out to begin with. Just think what would have happened if one or more of the
trucks did break down in route, and with the lack of troops needed for
convoy security, they would have been sitting ducks.
From what has been reported, it could simply be that a bad order was issued,
that should have never been issued. It seems this unit was not up to TO
strength in operational vehicles and manpower to complete the mission.
So again this is all speculation until we find out the real story.
As it is the unit in question is now in a safety standdown according to the
news, so something is not right.
LawsonE
"COL J. F. Burleson" <burle...@chartertn.net> wrote in message
news:10n68ai...@corp.supernews.com...
[...]
>
> I, like everyone else, will have to wait for the "facts" in this situation
> and form my own opinion. In the meantime, my opinion will be formed based
> on what I hear, completely accurate or not. As the "full truth and
> nothing
> but the truth" is revealed (if ever), my opinion may change. What will
> never change, however, is my deep conviction that soldiers... be they
> privates or generals... must obey lawful orders of those authorized to
> give
> them. The situation or facts will not change that. Of course the key
> words
> in that are "lawful orders".... and just because an order is unpopular or
> dangerous, it does not make it any less lawful. We simply cannot allow
> soldiers to pick and choose which orders they will obey and which they
> won't.
Of course that isn't the case at all. Soldiers pick and chose which orders
to obey all the time in wartime. If they are caught disobeying an order they
must offer justification for disobeying it, but there's no punishment for
disobeying an unlawful order if you can prove its unlawful.
COL J. F. Burleson
"Dana" <de...@losers.com> wrote in message
news:275db24f75ff9da9...@news.meganetnews.com...
Good points, but none of them change my opinion. Even given the scenario
you give about the condition of the trucks, personnel for security, etc.,
soldiers cannot be allowed to refuse lawful orders. Plain and simple....
Even a bad order, if lawful, must be obeyed.
JFB
COL J. F. Burleson
"LawsonE" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:g6Gcd.8319$gy1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "COL J. F. Burleson" <burle...@chartertn.net> wrote in message
> news:10n65lj...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > although, in my estimation, I was the only one being honest. Those who
> > said
> > the chances were 50/50 were either naive or lying. The very "due
process"
> > you mention makes it highly unlikely -- no, guarantees -- that it is not
> > 50/50.
>
> But you MUST deal with the situation as though it were 50/50 unless
> "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply in courts martial?
You are absolutely correct... I must deal with it as if it were 50/50....
although it would not be. Again, the defendent could be innocent. I fully
understand that. It's just that it is not likely 50/50....
JFB
************
COL J. F. Burleson
>
> "COL J. F. Burleson" <burle...@chartertn.net> wrote in message
> news:10n68ai...@corp.supernews.com...
> [...]
> >
> > I, like everyone else, will have to wait for the "facts" in this
situation
> > and form my own opinion. In the meantime, my opinion will be formed
based
> > on what I hear, completely accurate or not. As the "full truth and
> > nothing
> > but the truth" is revealed (if ever), my opinion may change. What will
> > never change, however, is my deep conviction that soldiers... be they
> > privates or generals... must obey lawful orders of those authorized to
> > give
> > them. The situation or facts will not change that. Of course the key
> > words
> > in that are "lawful orders".... and just because an order is unpopular
or
> > dangerous, it does not make it any less lawful. We simply cannot allow
> > soldiers to pick and choose which orders they will obey and which they
> > won't.
> Of course that isn't the case at all. Soldiers pick and chose which orders
> to obey all the time in wartime. If they are caught disobeying an order
they
> must offer justification for disobeying it, but there's no punishment for
> disobeying an unlawful order if you can prove its unlawful.
Yes, I recognize that soldiers pick and choose every time an order is given,
as we all do. It's just that, whether they personally agree with it or not,
whether it is dangerous or not, etc., if it is a lawful order, they must
choose to obey it or face the consequences. Yes, they will have the
opportunity to justify their reasons for disobeying it, if necessary,
however, I believe that history will bear out that very few orders that have
been disobeyed have been proven to be illegal. Dumb, dangerous, biased, not
well thought out, unclear, incomplete, untimely, etc.... maybe... but not
unlawful.
The military is not a democracy.... You don't get to pick your leaders and
you don't get to decide whether or not to do what you are told, unless it is
clearly -- repeat, clearly -- unlawful. To be unlawful is a very, very
narrow probability....
JFB
Dana
> Good points, but none of them change my opinion. Even given the scenario
> you give about the condition of the trucks, personnel for security, etc.,
> soldiers cannot be allowed to refuse lawful orders. Plain and simple....
> Even a bad order, if lawful, must be obeyed.
>
> JFB
Than technically any order an officer or senior NCO makes in a combat
theather should be considered as a lawful order, and that does bring up the
issue of what is a lawful order. I can agree that to maintain good order,
lawful orders have to be obeyed, but there is a limit as to what kind of bad
order is considered lawful.
Listen to what Kerry said back in the 70's when he testified to Congress
about the Vietnam war. He basically told Congress that he was ordered to
engage in what is considered war atrocities. So were those orders to shoot
woman and children lawful orders??
Not that I think Kerry was telling the truth.
But back to the situation with these Supply troops, we are all speculating
as to what happened. Being that the unit is now in a safety stand down, it
does seem as if the unit was not combat ready. And unless the situation was
critical, there is no reason to send a non combat ready unit into combat.
This actually brings up another good point, and that is why is there
oposition to increasing the end strength of the services. We have quite a
few reserve and guard units called up on active duty, and now they are
reaching down to the IRR, seems to me that Congress should allow the
services to increase their end strength, or stop spreading the forces so
thin. They can always do another drawdown like they did in the 90's when the
need for such a large force is not needed.
>
>
la n.
Neither am I ... :) I didn't think you were. I knew you
could take the little *kick* I sent your way ... ;0
>
> What makes this newsgroup great is that people can share their opinions and
> agree/disagree without getting mad/upset with each other.
Usually. Unfortunately, not always. Usenet is definitely not
for the faint of heart. I don't take things personally, but I
will not engage in conversations with people who persist in
personal insults instead of good counterpoints. I also have
little to no tolerance of engaging in conversation with people
of the x-treme right or x-treme left political spectrum. It's
just a plain waste of time.
>
> Colin sounds like a good friend, who offers good advice.
He's one of the best people I've ever known. He doesn't even
have to "advise" me. He just leads by example - not only for
his friends but also the guys in his command (from what I've
heard). I tend to give his comments extra credibility bonus
points because he is over in Iraq right now in a very
responsible position.
>
> I, like everyone else, will have to wait for the "facts" in this situation
> and form my own opinion. In the meantime, my opinion will be formed based
> on what I hear, completely accurate or not. As the "full truth and nothing
> but the truth" is revealed (if ever), my opinion may change. What will
> never change, however, is my deep conviction that soldiers... be they
> privates or generals... must obey lawful orders of those authorized to give
> them. The situation or facts will not change that. Of course the key words
> in that are "lawful orders".... and just because an order is unpopular or
> dangerous, it does not make it any less lawful. We simply cannot allow
> soldiers to pick and choose which orders they will obey and which they
> won't.
I see your point. Being a civilian, I don't know a lot about military
protocol. However, it does raise my hackles when people ASSume things,
jump to conclusions, run rampant with rumour, and the like.
>
> Thanks for participating in this discussion... Your opinions are just as
> welcome as mine or anybody else's. It make for a lively discussion.
Why thank you. Indeed it does make for a lively discussion, and I
appreciate your clarity and kindness, even if we don't always agree.
In that way, you are very much like Colin.
>
> Like I said, however,.... our Monday morning quarterbacking really has no
> impact.
>
Indeed.
- nilita (posting from UMA)
LawsonE
But if you can't step back and say "ok, perhaps they made a mistake in THIS
case," you shouldn't be involved in the trial, save as a hostile witness.
LawsonE
[...]
> Good points, but none of them change my opinion. Even given the scenario
> you give about the condition of the trucks, personnel for security, etc.,
> soldiers cannot be allowed to refuse lawful orders. Plain and simple....
> Even a bad order, if lawful, must be obeyed.
>
A bad order, if it doesn't allow the stated mission to be fulfilled, may not
fit the official definition of "unlawful," but it would be downright stupid
for anyone to follow it.
la n.
Hypothetical question. What if the guy who gave the order
was drunk or ill or something?
- nilita, don't laff ... i know it's a silly villain question .... %)
**Dalin**
this morning that those trucks are now being fitted with armor. So
the platoons refusal to drive them did result in trucks that are now
fit to be taken into an unsafe area. So - if the military CAN armor
those trucks, why weren't they armored before the platoon was ordered
to use them in an unsafe area?
Dalin
Colin Campbell
>OK lets look at this. The supply troops were talking about the vehicles were
>not in an operable condition and needed maintenance, and that there was no
>security for the convoy.
>I am not to sure about in the Army, but in the Marines, the support services
>provide their own security, so this lack of security has me questioning what
>has been reported.
Without going into details (Opsec) there are requirements (escort
vehicles, medical evacuation vehicles, recovery vehicles, numbers of
crew-served weapons, communications gear, etc) that are required for a
convoy to go 'outside the wire.'
--
"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine
Colin Campbell
wrote:
>Hypothetical question. What if the guy who gave the order
>was drunk or ill or something?
>
>- nilita, don't laff ... i know it's a silly villain question .... %)
This is the nightmare scenario that all junior leaders dread.
Basically you try to get a hold of the next guy up in the chain of
command and hope he is sober.
Colin Campbell
Howard Berkowitz
activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore) wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 02:11:57 GMT, "Dana" <de...@losers.com> wrote:
>
>
> >OK lets look at this. The supply troops were talking about the vehicles
> >were
> >not in an operable condition and needed maintenance, and that there was
> >no
> >security for the convoy.
> >I am not to sure about in the Army, but in the Marines, the support
> >services
> >provide their own security, so this lack of security has me questioning
> >what
> >has been reported.
>
> Without going into details (Opsec) there are requirements (escort
> vehicles, medical evacuation vehicles, recovery vehicles, numbers of
> crew-served weapons, communications gear, etc) that are required for a
> convoy to go 'outside the wire.'
>
And preferably at least one more of each type of battery that you
carry.
Colin Campbell
<VV...@communistsforkerry.com> wrote:
>> Or do you always condemm people based on nothing more than rumor and
>> newspaper articles whose source is hearsay?
>
>Didn't officers send another group using the same equipment on the same mission and they came back?
Was it the _same_ equipment?
We do not know.
PowerPointSamurai
> COL J. F. Burleson wrote:
>
>> I agree with the majority here.... There is simply no excuse for any
>> soldier
>> to refuse to follow legal orders. That cannot be allowed to happen,
>> regardless of the circumstances. They should be punished to the extent
>> possible to serve as a reminder to others who may be having similar
>> thoughts. By their refusing to complete the mission, their fellow unit
>> members had to take their places; other folks who may have just returned
>> from a similar mission. The soldiers who refused the mission/orders
>> are very
>> fortunate I am not their commander or a member of their court martial
>> panel.
>> COL Colleen Maguire, the USDB Commandant at Leavenworth, is probably
>> going
>> to pick up several more members of her "unit"... And, that is totally
>> justified and right.
>>
>> Their only hope is that Kerry gets elected and pardons them.... sorry, I
>> just could not resist the last minute thought. :-) :-)
>>
>>
>
> So, kill 'em all, eh?
>
> - nilita (canuckistanian civilian jes' tryin' to understand how
> things are done ... ;)
To be fair, nilita, that's not what he said. At no point above does he
say they should be executed, just sent to Leavenworth, although he
qualifies that by saying he is not their commander, nor a member of
their courts martial board, so it's not up to him.
PowerPointSamurai
> On Sat 16 Oct 2004 01:29:41p, "COL J. F. Burleson"
> <burle...@chartertn.net> wrote in message
> news:10n2mbb...@corp.supernews.com:
>
>>
>>"la n." <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:eNccd.10193$_u6.355@edtnps89...
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>COL J. F. Burleson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I agree with the majority here.... There is simply no excuse for any
>>>>soldier
>>>>to refuse to follow legal orders. That cannot be allowed to happen,
>>>>regardless of the circumstances. They should be punished to the
>>>>extent possible to serve as a reminder to others who may be having
>>>>similar thoughts. By their refusing to complete the mission, their
>>>>fellow unit members had to take their places; other folks who may
>>>>have just returned from a similar mission. The soldiers who refused
>>>>the mission/orders are very fortunate I am not their commander or a
>>>>member of their court martial panel.
>>>>
>>>>COL Colleen Maguire, the USDB Commandant at Leavenworth, is probably
>>>>going to pick up several more members of her "unit"... And, that is
>>>>totally justified and right.
>>>>
>>>>Their only hope is that Kerry gets elected and pardons them....
>>>>sorry, I just could not resist the last minute thought. :-) :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>So, kill 'em all, eh?
>>>
>>>- nilita (canuckistanian civilian jes' tryin' to understand how
>>>things are done ... ;)
>>
>>***********
>>I don't understand your question....
>>
>> JFB
>>
>
>
>
> It's OK - "nilita" obviously didn't understand your post. Your post was
> quite clear and reasonable. It has been my observation that those who
> disagree with (insert any aspect of the current administration) lack the
> capability of any substantive reasoned argument. The only arrow in their
> quiver seems to be marked "DRAMATIC EFFECT"...
Not this time. She was following this thread and some were strongly
advocating execution for treason/mutiny. I think she simply mistook his
post for one of the pro-execution posts.
la n.
I know .. I know ... the Colonel and I have since kissed
and made up. PP Samurai, you're late the dance again! ... ;)
- nilita
PowerPointSamurai
> COL J. F. Burleson wrote:
>
>> "la n." <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1wecd.11520$_u6.11165@edtnps89...
>>
>>> jdhood wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sat 16 Oct 2004 01:29:41p, "COL J. F. Burleson"
>>>> <burle...@chartertn.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:10n2mbb...@corp.supernews.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "la n." <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:eNccd.10193$_u6.355@edtnps89...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> COL J. F. Burleson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with the majority here.... There is simply no excuse for any
>>>>>>> soldier
>>>>>>> to refuse to follow legal orders. That cannot be allowed to happen,
>>>>>>> regardless of the circumstances. They should be punished to the
>>>>>>> extent possible to serve as a reminder to others who may be having
>>>>>>> similar thoughts. By their refusing to complete the mission, their
>>>>>>> fellow unit members had to take their places; other folks who may
>>>>>>> have just returned from a similar mission. The soldiers who refused
>>>>>>> the mission/orders are very fortunate I am not their commander or a
>>>>>>> member of their court martial panel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> COL Colleen Maguire, the USDB Commandant at Leavenworth, is probably
>>>>>>> going to pick up several more members of her "unit"... And, that is
>>>>>>> totally justified and right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Their only hope is that Kerry gets elected and pardons them....
>>>>>>> sorry, I just could not resist the last minute thought. :-) :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, kill 'em all, eh?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - nilita (canuckistanian civilian jes' tryin' to understand how
>>>>>> things are done ... ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ***********
>>>>> I don't understand your question....
>>>>>
>>>>> JFB
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's OK - "nilita" obviously didn't understand your post. Your post was
>>>> quite clear and reasonable. It has been my observation that those who
>>>> disagree with (insert any aspect of the current administration) lack
>>>> the
>>>> capability of any substantive reasoned argument. The only arrow in
>>>> their
>>>> quiver seems to be marked "DRAMATIC EFFECT"...
>>>>
>>>> JD Hood
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I explained myself in a follow-up post. Now, if COL Burleson
>>> is an officer and a gentleman, he will graciously accept my
>>> clarification and otherwise take what I say with a grain of
>>> salt. As I said, I'm only here to learn.
>>>
>>> - nilita
>>
>>
>>
>> *************
>> I do appreciate and accept your clarification... It does not, however,
>> change my opinion about the situation.
>>
>> Thanks...
>>
>> JFB
>>
>>
>
> Fair enough. As I said in another thread, one notes that
> this is currently under investigation and that the Military
> notes that this troop previously were known to be very
> well disciplined, honourable, hard working, etc.
>
> It makes me wonder ... what happened?
>
> I guess mebbe because I'm a civilian I'm not ready yet
> to see them so quickly judged and condemned to death.
> I do understand how the Military generally feels about
> cowardice, so your POV is valid.
Part of the problem with support troops in general is that they have
funny command relationships because they work "for" many different
people. Was it their chain of command that directed them to go a
certain route, or was it a "customer unit" that told them to go there or
who? Also, support troops are often detached from their parent units
and attached to others, so they lose the benefit of unit integrity or
established rapport with the people they work with sometimes.
COL J. F. Burleson
> > welcome as mine or anybody else's. It make for a lively discussion.
> Why thank you. Indeed it does make for a lively discussion, and I
> appreciate your clarity and kindness, even if we don't always agree.
> In that way, you are very much like Colin.
Thanks --- I'll take that as a compliment, since I know how you feel about
Colin.
JFB
COL J. F. Burleson
You have a point, however, to fail to obey it would subject the person to
consequences.
Soldiers have many avenues of redress, rather than refusal to obey orders.
Thiose who do must accept the penalty.
JFB
PowerPointSamurai
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 10:02:42 -0500, "Paul H. Lemmen"
> <ple...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"RH" <halco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:524db79f.0410...@posting.google.com...
>>
>>>Some soldiers are using their brains, rather than letting their so
>>>called 'superiors' use them as kamakazees!
>>>God bless em all.
>>>
>>
>>Right...refusing to delivery fuel and water to comrades in a desert
>>environment is laudable. What an arsehole. You can disagree with the
>>motivations, you can question everything about the war. To refuse to
>>re-supply fellow soldiers is not only a violation of the oath sworn when
>>enlisting, it is counter to the training and very spirit of being a soldier.
>>These people, if this report is true, have broken a main tenent of the
>>soldiers creed, to support and protect your comrades in arms. If they are
>>not disciplined, no other unit will ever rely on them again. My personal
>>opinion is that if proven that they willfully refused to obey a lawful order
>>to supply sustinence to their fellow soldiers that everyone from the unit
>>commander down be sacked and the ringleaders by punished to the full extent
>>of the UCMJ...upon conviction the leaders of a mutiny during wartime may be
>>executed for their crime.
>
>
> And we do not know the whole story yet. There are reports that one of
> the issues was the fact that the vehicles were NMC (Not Mission
> Capable).
>
> We all need to wait for the full story and not jump to conclusions.
That would be a legitmate concern and a good example of facts we have to
ascertain before anybody can weigh in on this too much.
PowerPointSamurai
> "Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
> message news:7784n0h31gjug1dsk...@4ax.com...
>
>>Why don't we wait for the full story before we jump to conclusions?
>>
>>For example - under Army regulations - can a soldier be given a
>>'lawful order' to drive a deadlined vehicle on a mission?
>>
>
>
> I seriously doubt that a deadlined vehicle could leave the motor pool.
> That's what deadline means--- waiting on parts and service, or waiting to be
> scavenged for parts. Deadlined vehicles don't even stand the IG inspection.
> (but their paperwork does)
Deadlined does not necessarilly mean it doesn't move. The -10 users
manual clearly defines what is or is not deadlined if you do a proper
PMCS (Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services) and is not open to
opinion. Certain engine oil leaks make a vehicle deadlined for example.
Brakes are another good example. Vehicles must be PMCS'd every time
they go out to ensure they are running properly.
Now, depending on the circumstances, the unit commander for that unit
can "circle X" a deadlined vehicle and authorize it's use under limited
conditions. In peacetime, a commander is risking his a$$ by doing so
unless absolutely necessary because if the anything happens, you just
acknowledged the vehicle has deadlining faults and you accept the risk.
In wartime, of course there are times you will accept a little more
risk because the consequenses for mission failure outweigh them.
Now, how about we wait until we hear more info on this?
PowerPointSamurai
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 10:32:17 +0300, Colin Campbell
> <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote:
>
>
>
>>And we do not know the whole story yet. There are reports that one of
>>the issues was the fact that the vehicles were NMC (Not Mission
>>Capable).
>
>
>
> I saw that. If so, then would they be appropriately disobeying
> inappropriate orders?
>
That depends. Their unit commander can "circle X" their deadline,
acknowledging that he/she is aware of the faults on the vehicle but
authorizes it to be used anyway within certain limitations or
conditions. If that's the case, I think you would have a tough time
using that as a defense, but I digress...I'm not a lawyer.
More facts are clearly needed.
lonestar
COL J. F. Burleson wrote:
> "la n." <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:iNCcd.31349$qU.17064@clgrps13...
LawsonE
>
> "LawsonE" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:ErHcd.8385$gy1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "COL J. F. Burleson" <burle...@chartertn.net> wrote in message
>> news:10n6c75...@corp.supernews.com...
>> [...]
>> > Good points, but none of them change my opinion. Even given the
> scenario
>> > you give about the condition of the trucks, personnel for security,
> etc.,
>> > soldiers cannot be allowed to refuse lawful orders. Plain and
> simple....
>> > Even a bad order, if lawful, must be obeyed.
>> >
>>
>> A bad order, if it doesn't allow the stated mission to be fulfilled, may
> not
>> fit the official definition of "unlawful," but it would be downright
> stupid
>> for anyone to follow it.
>>
>>*********
> You have a point, however, to fail to obey it would subject the person to
> consequences.
Sure, that is always the case whether you obey and order or not. Actions
have consequences. The point is: would obeying the order lead to something
worse than not obeying the order? And I'm not just talking about the
"suicide" aspect, but whether or not the following the order would fulfill
the task that the order was meant to accomplish in the first place.
>
> Soldiers have many avenues of redress, rather than refusal to obey orders.
> Thiose who do must accept the penalty.
If a penalty is forthcoming....
LawsonE
"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:svd8n0tfi8t8nn85a...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 02:11:57 GMT, "Dana" <de...@losers.com> wrote:
>
>
>>OK lets look at this. The supply troops were talking about the vehicles
>>were
>>not in an operable condition and needed maintenance, and that there was no
>>security for the convoy.
>>I am not to sure about in the Army, but in the Marines, the support
>>services
>>provide their own security, so this lack of security has me questioning
>>what
>>has been reported.
>
> Without going into details (Opsec) there are requirements (escort
> vehicles, medical evacuation vehicles, recovery vehicles, numbers of
> crew-served weapons, communications gear, etc) that are required for a
> convoy to go 'outside the wire.'
>
One of the reports I've read in passing says that the convoy was one of the
few in Iraq that was NOT armored because they normally did not go into the
kind of danger that they were ordered to go into. Is it possible to have a
vehicle "deadlined" for specific kinds of service, but considered useable
for others?
Dana
message news:svd8n0tfi8t8nn85a...@4ax.com...
>
>
> >OK lets look at this. The supply troops were talking about the vehicles
were
> >not in an operable condition and needed maintenance, and that there was
no
> >security for the convoy.
> >I am not to sure about in the Army, but in the Marines, the support
services
> >provide their own security, so this lack of security has me questioning
what
> >has been reported.
>
> Without going into details (Opsec) there are requirements (escort
> vehicles, medical evacuation vehicles, recovery vehicles, numbers of
> crew-served weapons, communications gear, etc) that are required for a
> convoy to go 'outside the wire.'
Correct, and which from what I have heard this unit was lacking in some of
this. When I was in we would call this unit not mission capable until it had
reached a certain level of readiness, and from what it seems, this unit was
not ready for front line type of service.
And I agree in what you have been saying about waiting for the results of
the investigation. That the unit in question was put into a safety stand
down seems to indicate that some of the issues raised may have indeed exist.
Dana
Yes.
We would do that with our A6's and F18's all the time
So if it could be done with Jets I am sure it could have been done for
vehicles, heck some of the 6by's I have rode in looked like they were beyond
"deadlined"
>
>
>
DittyDu...@webtv.net
was that the trucks had previously been assigned to relatively safe
areas. The new order told them to drive through Baghdad, in the least
safe zone in the country, and deliver fuel to a point on the other side.
Then they still had to return. They also said the fuel was tainted, but
the analysis hadn't come back yet.
A soldier's wife was the one who called the Miss. legislator, and he
called Washington and the Pentagon. She was the major source of his
info.
Blake
-------------------
lj...@mindspring.com (**Dalin**)
Marian
oldest equipment... The U.S. hasn't experienced a call-up of them like this
since WWII. Marian
***********************************************************************
Twixt PHARMA & Flu, Bush sez: PRAY you don't get sick!
http://www.PictureTrail.com/gid4866561
***********************************************************************
**Dalin**
as they were not equipped with armor. They never expected those
trucks to go into an unsafe place.
Funny how we insist motorcyclists wear helmets, bicyclists wear
helmets, people wear seatbelts, football players wear protective gear,
yet we expect our soldiers to risk their lives in unarmored trucks and
they get in trouble if they refuse.
Sure I know you can't have soldiers disobeying orders all over the
place, but I think there really has to be room to accomodate those who
do en mass when it is possible their commander was not doing his/her
best to look after his men either.
Dalin
**Dalin**
Dalin
PowerPointSamurai
Deadline is not a subjective thing, it is clearly spelled out in the
operators (-10) manual for the vehicle. They may have perceived (maybe
correctly) that the vehicle needed something beyond that, but that does
not make it deadlined. That would make it an issue for them to work out
with the chain of command.
PowerPointSamurai
This sounds similar to what you can do with helicopters. Army
helicopters can be "partially mission capable". Not so with vehicles.
They are either fully mission capable as per the operators manual (-10),
or have faults (which do not deadline the vehicle), or they have
deadlining deficiencies which must be corrected to be mission capable.
That being said, the commander may "circle X" a deadlining deficiency,
acknowledging there is a problem and that he is accepting the risk in
the mission. BTW, that is no small thing for a commander to "accept the
risk". First of all, he/she is responsible for the accomplishment of
the mission and the lives and welfare of their Soldiers. Moreover, if
something does happen, it opens them up to scrutiny that could result in
UCMJ or relief from command.
Abrigon Gusiq
chargible under the USMJ and civilian laws, as giving aid to the enemy?
Mike
Alaska
RH wrote:
>
> Some soldiers are using their brains, rather than letting their so
> called 'superiors' use them as kamakazees!
> God bless em all.
>
> --------------------------
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1015-11.htm
> Platoon Defies Orders in Iraq
>
> By Jeremy Hudson
> The Clarion-Ledger, Jackson MS
>
> Friday 15 October 2004
>
> Miss. soldier calls home, cites safety concerns.
>
> A 17-member Army Reserve platoon with troops from Jackson, Miss.,
> and
> around the Southeast deployed to Iraq is under arrest for refusing a
> suicide
> mission to deliver fuel, the troops relatives said Thursday.
>
> The soldiers refused an order on Wednesday to go to Taji, Iraq
> north of
> Baghdad because their vehicles were considered deadlined or extremely
> unsafe, said Patricia McCook of Jackson, wife of Sgt. Larry O. McCook.
>
> Sgt. McCook, a deputy at the Hinds County, Miss., Detention
> Center, and the
> 16 other members of the 343rd Quartermaster Company from Rock Hill,
> S.C., were
> read their rights and moved from the military barracks into tents,
> Patricia
> McCook said her husband told her during a panicked phone call about 5
> a.m.
> Thursday.
>
> The platoon could be charged with the willful disobeying of
> orders,
> punishable by dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay and up to five
> years
> confinement, said military law expert Mark Stevens, an associate
> professor of
> justice studies at Wesleyan College in Rocky Mount, N.C.
>
> On Friday, the Army confirmed that the units actions were under
> scrutiny.
>
> The commanding general of the 13th Corps Support Command has
> appointed the
> Deputy Commander to lead an investigation into allegations that
> members of the
> 343rd Quartermaster Company refused to participate in their assigned
> convoy
> mission October 13, said Lt. Col Steven A. Boylan, a spokesman for
> U.S. Army
> and multinational forces in Iraq.
>
> The investigating team is currently in Tallil taking statements
> and
> interviewing those involved. This is an isolated incident and it is
> far too
> early in the investigation to speculate as to what happened, why it
> happened or
> any action that might be taken, Boylan said.
>
> It is important to note that the mission in question was carried
> out using
> other soldiers from the unit, Boylan said.
>
> Boylan also confirmed that the unit is stationed in Tallil, a
> logistical
> support air base south of Nasiriyah.
>
> Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said he plans to submit a
> congressional
> inquiry today on behalf of the Mississippi soldiers to launch an
> investigation
> into whether they are being treated improperly.
>
> I would not want any member of the military to be put in a
> dangerous
> situation ill-equipped, said Thompson, who was contacted by families.
> I have
> had similar complaints from military families about vehicles that
> werent
> armor-plated, or bullet-proof vests that are outdated. It concerns me
> because
> we made over $150 billion in funds available to equip our forces in
> Iraq.
>
> President Bush takes the position that the troops are well-armed,
> but if
> this situation is true, it calls into question how honest he has been
> with the
> country, Thompson said.
>
> The 343rd is a supply unit whose general mission is to deliver
> fuel and
> water. The unit includes three women and 14 men and those with ranking
> up to
> sergeant first class.
>
> I got a call from an officer in another unit early (Thursday)
> morning who
> told me that my husband and his platoon had been arrested on a bogus
> charge
> because they refused to go on a suicide mission, said Jackie Butler of
> Jackson, wife of Sgt. Michael Butler, a 24-year reservist. When my
> husband
> refuses to follow an order, it has to be something major.
>
> The platoon being held has troops from Alabama, Kentucky, North
> Carolina,
> Mississippi and South Carolina, said Teresa Hill of Dothan, Ala.,
> whose
> daughter Amber McClenny is among those being detained.
>
> McClenny, 21, pleaded for help in a message left on her mothers
> answering
> machine early Thursday morning.
>
> They are holding us against our will, McClenny said. We are now
> prisoners.
>
> McClenny told her mother her unit tried to deliver fuel to another
> base in
> Iraq Wednesday, but was sent back because the fuel had been
> contaminated with
> water. The platoon returned to its base, where it was told to take the
> fuel to
> another base, McClenny told her mother.
>
> The platoon is normally escorted by armed Humvees and helicopters,
> but did
> not have that support Wednesday, McClenny told her mother.
>
> The convoy trucks the platoon was driving had experienced problems
> in the
> past and were not being properly maintained, Hill said her daughter
> told her.
>
> The situation mirrors other tales of troops being sent on missions
> without
> proper equipment.
>
> Aviation regiments have complained of being forced to fly
> dangerous
> missions over Iraq with outdated night-vision goggles and old
> missile-avoidance
> systems. Stories of troops families purchasing body armor because the
> military
> didnt provide them with adequate equipment have been included in
> recent
> presidential debates.
>
> Patricia McCook said her husband, a staff sergeant, understands
> well the
> severity of disobeying orders. But he did not feel comfortable taking
> his
> soldiers on another trip.
>
> He told me that three of the vehicles they were to use were
> deadlines ...
> not safe to go in a hotbed like that, Patricia McCook said.
>
> Hill said the trucks her daughters unit was driving could not top
> 40 mph.
>
> They knew there was a 99 percent chance they were going to get
> ambushed or
> fired at, Hill said her daughter told her. They would have had no way
> to
> fight back.
>
> Kathy Harris of Vicksburg, Miss., is the mother of Aaron Gordon,
> 20, who is
> among those being detained. Her primary concern is that she has been
> told the
> soldiers have not been provided access to a judge advocate general.
>
> Stevens said if the soldiers are being confined, law requires them
> to have
> a hearing before a magistrate within seven days.
>
> Harris said conditions for the platoon have been difficult of
> late. Her son
> e-mailed her earlier this week to ask what the penalty would be if he
> became
> physical with a commanding officer, she said.
>
> But Nadine Stratford of Rock Hill, S.C., said her godson Colin
> Durham, 20,
> has been happy with his time in Iraq. She has not heard from him since
> the
> platoon was detained.
>
> When I talked to him about a month ago, he was fine, Stratford
> said. He
> said it was like being at home.
>
> ###
>
> ============
>
> Good source for news:
> http://www.commondreams.org/
>
> ======
>
> Breaking the biggest story of all time:
> http://www.share-international.org
>
> ---